Apr 9, 2021 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ, together with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) in Indonesia, held a webinar on 6 April to consider ways to combat discrimination and violence faced by Indonesian women.
In particular, participants identified advocacy strategies towards strengthening Indonesia’s compliance with its international legal obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The webinar was broadcast live on Facebook and showcased the Bahasa Indonesia version of CEDAW video and attended by more than 50 women human rights defenders. The participants discussed the adequacy of measures taken by the Indonesian government to implement recommendations issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) after it had reviewed Indonesia’s report in 2012. These recommendations included a call to repeal discriminatory by-laws adopted at the provincial level that restrict women’s rights in Aceh province and elsewhere; the adoption of measures taken to ensure that the draft or proposed amendments to the Criminal Code Bill and other bills do not contain provisions that discriminate against women; the need to address gender based violence and sexual violence against women including indigenous women; and the protection of women human rights defenders.
Devi Anggraini, Chairperson of Association of Indigenous Women of the Archipelago (Perempuan Aman) said although Indonesia had ratified CEDAW through Law No. 7 year 1984 to protect the individual rights of Indonesian women, policies had yet to effectively protect the collective rights of indigenous women. She shared her concerns regarding discrimination against Indigenous women in the context of large-scale development projects, exploitation of natural resources, deforestation, and expansion of agriculture, as well as their access to land and resources.
“The Indonesian government does not seek ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ by the affected indigenous people, especially indigenous women and this has caused 87.8% of indigenous women to lose control of their traditional lands,” said Devi.
Dian Novita, Coordinator of Policy Advocacy Division from Legal aid for Women and Children (LBH APIK Jakarta) raised concern about discriminatory draft laws and provincial laws.
“LBH APIK assists many cases of women who are victims of gender-based violence in which their videos containing private sexual conducts were distributed online. However, they were criminalized under the pornography law and Electronic Information’s and Transactions (EIT) Law. We are currently trying to pursue judicial review of the ETI Law from women’s perspective”, said Dian.
Andy Yentriyani, Head of Komnas Perempuan said that despite existing challenges and new obstacles, there had been some progress in responding to the Recommendations of the CEDAW Committee from the previous cycle, such as the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation no.3 year 2017 on guidance for judges in adjudicating cases involving women and similar gender sensitive regulation released by the Attorney General’s Office and the Police. “It is now our duty to monitor that these policies and training are effectively implemented. For example, we gained extraordinary support from the civil society during the campaign urging the Government to adopt the Sexual Violence Bill and this expanded participatory space for constructive dialogue for public to understand more about State responsibilities to protect and promote the fundamental rights of women.”
Watch
Contact
Ruth Panjaitan, Legal Adviser for Indonesia, e: ruthstephani.panjaitan(a)icj.org
Apr 2, 2021 | News
The Thai authorities’ adoption of a draft law to regulate non-profit groups would strike a severe blow to human rights in Thailand, several international organizations said today. The bill is the latest effort by the Thai government to pass repressive legislation to muzzle civil society groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The “Draft Act on the Operations of Not-for-Profit Organizations” contains provisions that would have a deeply damaging impact on those joining together to advocate for human rights in the country, in violation of their right to freedom of association and other rights. The Thai government provided a perfunctory and inadequate consultation process for the bill. Because of fundamental problems in the draft law, the authorities should withdraw the draft entirely and ensure that any future law regulating NGOs strictly adheres to international human rights law and standards, the organizations said.
“This draft law poses an existential threat to both established human rights organizations and grassroots community groups alike. If enacted, this law would strike a severe blow to human rights by giving the government the arbitrary power to ban groups and criminalize individuals it doesn’t like,” said Maria Chin Abdullah, member of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) and a Malaysian Member of Parliament (MP).
“This draft blatantly breaches Thailand’s own constitution and its human rights obligations. A thriving, independent and free civil society is an essential component of a rights-respecting, open society. The authorities should withdraw this deeply flawed draft and go back to the drawing board,” said Brad Adams, Director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division.
Arbitrary and vaguely-defined powers
According to the Draft Act (in Section 3), the government would have wide discretion as to which organizations will be exempted from the application of the law.
The Draft Act (in Section 4) also uses an overbroad definition of not-for-profit organizations (NPO), which has left it open to abusive and arbitrary application by the authorities.
The broad terms of the Draft Act would allow unequal treatment of certain disfavoured groups and carry dire consequences for associations critical of the government, with little scope to legally challenge government decisions. Groups as varied as academic institutions, community groups, sports associations, art galleries and ad hoc disaster relief collectives could be deemed to be NPOs and therefore be subject to the law’s mandatory registration requirement and potential criminal prosecution. The vague and overbroad definition of ‘not-for-profit organizations’ amounts to a violation of the “legality” principle, which requires any restriction to freedom of association and other fundamental freedoms be clearly “prescribed by law”.
Registered and unregistered groups alike must be allowed to function freely and be able to enjoy the right to freedom of association on equal terms. In order to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of association, States need to provide a simple, accessible, non-burdensome and non-discriminatory notification process for organizations to obtain their registration and must not require the authorities’ prior authorization.
“The draft law’s broad terms could be applied against virtually any group, no matter how small or informal,” said David Diaz-Jogeix, Senior Director of Programmes at ARTICLE 19. “If passed in its current form, the draft law will likely cause entire sectors of Thai civil society to collapse or take their activities underground.”
Excessive punishments
“Those found in breach of this law’s many faulty provisions risk lengthy prison sentences. Targetted NGOs could have their very existence extinguished at the whim of governmental authorities – enabling the silencing of critical and independent voices in Thailand,” said Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).
By making the registration of an NPO mandatory (in Section 5) and rendering any unregistered group illegal, the Draft Act would violate the right to freedom of association and severely impede the work of groups that defend and promote human rights.
Notably, under the proposed law (in Section 10), anyone found to belong to an unregistered association that operates within Thailand could be jailed for up to five years, fined up to 100,000 THB (approx. 3,200 USD), or both. This would effectively criminalize people solely for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of association.
“Paranoia” of foreign funding
“Around the world, bogus claims regarding foreign funding for NGOs are constantly used by repressive governments to distract from their own human rights record and to stigmatize and fuel paranoia regarding those who speak truth to power – often simply because they are critical of the government,” said Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu, FORUM-ASIA’s Executive Director. “Now Thailand seems to want to follow suit, adding itself to an unwelcome list of rights-abusing governments trying to control or severely limit NGO funding.”
The Draft Act (in Section 6) places discriminatory restrictions on organizations that receive foreign funding. Authorities have the sole discretion to determine which activities may be carried out using funds from foreign or international sources, leaving ample room for abuse.
Moreover, the Draft Act states as a rationale for enacting the law: “several [NPOs] accepted money [from foreign sources], and used them to fund activities that may affect the relationship between the Kingdom of Thailand and its neighboring countries, or public order within the Kingdom.” This justification stigmatizes organizations that use foreign funding by equating their objectives to those of “foreign agents”. The government has failed to recognize the legitimate work carried out by organizations and their contribution to the rule of law and development of the country, merely because they are funded by foreign sources.
Privacy invaded and censorship on expression
“In addition to the ongoing criminalization of online expression in Thailand, the Draft Act gives sweeping, unchecked and discretionary administrative powers to the authorities to further obstruct the work of human rights organizations,” said Emerlynne Gil, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Research.
The Draft Act not only confers the power to the authorities to closely scrutinize organizations, it also contains provisions to subject NPOs’ offices and members to invasive surveillance and searches without judicial oversight. The Draft Act (in Section 6) allows the authorities to enter civil society organizations’ offices and make copies of their electronic communications traffic data without prior notice or a court warrant. This is a serious threat to the right to privacy and to freely express the ideas and opinions of its members.
Without prior notice or a valid warrant, this arbitrary power clearly violates domestic and international standards on due process of law.
“In going down this route, Thailand stands to poison the space for civil society. The passage of this law would severely undercut Thailand’s claims to be a rights-respecting country with a flourishing civil society,” said David Kode, Advocacy and Campaigns Lead at CIVICUS.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, ian.seiderman(a)icj.org, +41 229793800
Download
The statement with additional background information and list of organizations in English and Thai.
Submissions
Amnesty International
Article 19
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists – English and Thai
Apr 2, 2021 | News
The ICJ today called on the Malaysian authorities to drop their criminal investigations of at least 11 participants in the peaceful Undi18 protests.
The Dang Wangi district police opened investigations against Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, an ICJ Commissioner, and at least ten other individuals including Simpang Renggam MP Maszlee Malik, Petaling Jaya MP Maria Chin Abdullah, and Segambut MP Hannah Yeoh in relation to the wholly peaceful and socially distanced Undi18 protest rally held on 27 March 2021.
They are being investigated for alleged violations of section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (‘PAA’) and Regulation 11 of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional MCO) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 (‘MCO No. 4 Regulations’).
The ICJ said that the application of these laws against the protestors would not be consistent with international law and standards on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
The ICJ said that the investigations seem intended to harass and intimidate those who would exercise their rights to free expression and peaceful assembly.
If charged and convicted, violations of the PAA could result in a fine of up to RM$10,000 (approx. USD 2,410). Violations of the MCO No. 4 Regulations may result in a prison term of up to six months and/or a fine of RM$10,000 (approx. USD 2,410).
The ICJ reiterated its previous call for Malaysian legislators to reform the PAA, which imposes unjustifiably burdensome restrictions carrying excessive penalties on the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly.
Contact
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Background
In July 2019, the Malaysian Parliament unanimously voted to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 years old.
On 25 March 2021, the Election Commission announced that it would postpone the implementation of this new rule from July 2021 to September 2022 at the latest. The Commission cited the COVID-19 lockdowns as a reason for the delay. This would affect the ability of 1.2 million people to vote, if elections are called later this year.
On 27 March 2021, hundreds of individuals gathered peacefully in front of Malaysia’ Parliament building to protest this delay. It was reported that the protestors were wearing face masks and trying to observe physical distancing, with some protestors donning full personal protective equipment.
On 29 March 2021, 11 individuals were summoned for questioning for alleged violations under section 9(5) of the PAA and Regulation 11 of the MCO No. 4 Regulations.
On 30 March 2021, eight of them gave their statements at the Dang Wangi police station in Kuala Lumpur. Four others, including Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, will give their statements on 2 April 2021.
Section 9(5) of the PAA imposes a requirement for a five-day notice of an assembly to the Officer in Charge of the Police District. Failure to do so may result in a fine not exceeding RM$10,000 (approx. USD$2,410). Section 21A also allows the police to issue compounds of up to RM$5,000 instead of a charge being proffered subject to the written consent of the Public Prosecutor.
Regulation 11 of the MCO No. 4 permits the gathering or involvement in a gathering subject to any directions issued by the Director General. Regulation 17 states that failure to comply may result in a fine not exceeding RM$1,000 (approx. USD$241), imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. Additional emergency laws have raised the potential fine that may be imposed to up to RM$10,000 (approx. USD$2,410).
Apr 1, 2021
An opinion piece by Mathuri Thamilmaran, ICJ National Legal Adviser in Sri Lanka.
On 1 March 2021, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa elicited considerable public interest through a single tweet. In his tweet commemorating Zero Discrimination Day, he declared his intent to ‘secure everybody’s right to live life with dignity regardless of age, gender, sexuality, race, physical appearance and beliefs’.[1]
According to reports, the tweet made history as the first public acknowledgment by a South Asian Head of State of everyone’s right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality and gender, thus affirming, effectively, one’s right to live life with dignity regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. It comes at a time when the President has initiated the drafting process of a new Constitution and a first draft is expected soon.
The tweet has opened up a much-needed conversation on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE) in Sri Lanka, particularly regarding the Government’s obligation to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are not discriminated against in law or practice.
As it stands, the Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law of all persons (Article 12). It also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion and place of birth.
Notably, therefore, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity and/or expression.
Sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka’s Penal Code (1883) criminalize “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and “acts of gross indecency”, respectively. Both sections have been used to criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations, albeit the Penal Code does not provide a definition of the terms used by those sections. Those convicted of the ‘crime’ may face up to ten years’ imprisonment.
Section 399 of the Penal Code criminalizes “gender impersonation”, and has often been used against transgender persons with cases being filed against them “for misleading the public”. Further, the loitering provisions of the Vagrants Ordinance (1842) have been used to intimidate, extort, detain and interrogate individuals whose appearance do not conform to gender norms.
In addition, Article 16 of the Constitution states that ‘existing written law and unwritten law shall be valid and operative notwithstanding any inconsistency’ with the provisions of the Fundamental Rights chapter.
As a result, judicial review of existing laws, such as the Penal Code and Vagrants Ordinance, is precluded, thereby shielding the authorities from any scrutiny, including in cases that have given rise to abuse allegations. These provisions have all contributed to an increase in human rights violations by police officers against LGBT persons.
Just last year, a special investigation by a local newspaper found that inhumane methods, including flogging and anal/vaginal examinations, which amount to torture or other ill-treatment, were being used against LGBT people by Sri Lankan authorities to obtain “evidence” of same-sex sexual relations. There had also been instances where H.I.V. tests had been ordered by courts and their results publicly revealed in court, a clear violation of the right to privacy of the individuals concerned.
Following these revelations, the Minister of Justice, Hon. Ali Sabry, made an official statement that he had instructed the relevant authorities to stop such harmful practices while also reiterating his belief in non-discrimination on the basis of ‘gender, sexual preference or identity’. Further, it was reported that as recently as this month, judges were warning the police not to harass transgender persons by misusing the laws and to treat them with dignity.
In 2014, the then Sri Lankan government made representation before the UN Human Rights Committee that Article 12 of the Constitution included non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but, as seen above, explicit provisions and application of the law seem to negate this argument.
Furthermore, in 2017, during its Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka committed to taking steps to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Since then, however, attempts to include SOGIE in the National Action Plan on Human Rights have been dropped due to opposition within the Cabinet.
Sri Lanka’s neighbours in South Asia have made progressive strides, with both India and Bhutan having decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in recent years. Bhutan’s penal code provision regarding ‘sex against the order of nature’ had been enacted only in 2004 but activism and the recognition that the law would dissuade those in same–sex relations from actively seeking treatment for H.I.V. led to the decision to decriminalize.
In 2018, the Indian Supreme Court read down section 377 of the Indian penal code which was used to criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations, and stated that its application to consensual relations between LGBT persons was unconstitutional as it was in violation of certain fundamental rights, including the right to equality.
In 2018, Pakistan enacted a law recognizing the human rights of transgender people, including the right to legal recognition of one’s preferred gender identity. Among other things, the understanding that most of the discriminatory legal provisions were remnants of British colonial rule and the need to move past such influence has led to these developments.
In Sri Lanka, homophobia is primarily seen as cultural issue, but there are indications that times are changing. Sections of the media now allow more space for discussions of LGBT persons’ human rights, even covering Pride events, while a Supreme Court judgment in 2016 noted that ‘consensual sex between adults should not be policed by the state nor should it be grounds for criminalisation’.
If a discriminatory law passed as late as 2004 can be discarded by Bhutan, then surely Sri Lanka too can follow its neighbours and break free from its colonial era shackles and guarantee equality for LGBT persons.
It is time that Sri Lanka steps up to fulfil its international human rights obligations by ensuring equality to all persons, including LGBT people, and that it delivers on the expectations raised by the President’s tweet and previous public pronouncements. Last year the President appointed an ‘Expert Committee’ to undertake the drafting of a new Constitution.
The inclusion of SOGIE as prohibited discrimination grounds in the Fundamental Rights protection provided by the (new) Constitution would be a first step in fulfilling the state’s international law commitments as well as rebuilding its relationship with LGBT people.
[1] https://twitter.com/GotabayaR/status/1366258501886955526
SriLanka-SOGI discrimination-News-opeds-2021-TAM (version in Tamil)
SriLanka-SOGI discrimination-News-opeds-2021-SIN (version in Sinhala)
Apr 1, 2021 | News
The conviction of political activists Martin Lee, Margaret Ng, Jimmy Lai, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, Leung Kwok-hung, Cyd Ho for their role in organizing public protests in 2019 delivers a massive blow to human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong, said the ICJ.
“These convictions are the latest attack on the already weakened standing of the rule of law and democracy in Hong Kong,” said Ian Seiderman, the ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The defendants were convicted by West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court on joint charges of organizing an unauthorized assembly under section 17A(3)(b)(i) of the Public Order Ordinance Cap. 245 and knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly under section 17A(3)(a) of the same Ordinance. Two other defendants, Au Nok-hin and Leung Yiu-chung, pleaded guilty in February before the trial began. They face up to five years in prison. Their sentences will be handed down at a later date.
“These prosecutions and convictions constitute persecution of human rights defenders, journalist, and politicians through abusive legal process. The unauthorized assembly provisions of the Public Order Ordinance has been used to silence lawful expressions of on matters of public concern,” said Ian Seiderman.
The Hong Kong SAR, though not the rest of the People’s Republic of China, is legally bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees to the right to freedom of assembly and expression. The ICCPR continues to be in force in Hong Kong by virtue of Article 39 of the Basic Law. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly expressed concern that charging people under the Public Order Ordinance against peaceful protesters in Hong Kong stands to violate their human rights under the ICCPR.
The ICJ has previously pointed out that imposing criminal charge on people exercising their right of peaceful assembly who fail to comply with a procedural requirement, such as notification, unduly restricts freedom of peaceful assembly by adding unnecessary barriers to public gatherings. Furthermore, the sentencing guidelines of the Ordinance, which include the possibility of a peaceful participant of a public assembly being sentenced to five years in prison if the organizers fail to comply with the notification requirement, are extreme, disproportionate and open to abuse.
Background
On 12 August 2019 the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) submitted a Notification of Intention to hold a public meeting and procession, informing the police of the intention to hold a public assembly on 18 August 2019 starting from Victoria Park and ending at Chater Road, and a second public assembly at Chater Road. The police objected to the public procession from the Park to Chater Road. The CHRF appealed against the police decision and after an appeal hearing convened by the Appeal Board on 16 August 2019, the Board upheld the police decision and dismissed the appeal lodged by CHRF.
The CHRF held a press conference on 17 August 2019 wherein they said the police had not arranged for the dispersal of crowds from Victoria Park so pro-democracy legislators and other influential activists would be assisting the crowds to disperse safely to nearby MTR stations. On 18 August 2019 during the public assembly at Victoria Park and the defendants carried a long banner out of Victoria Park Gate 17 and led a procession of people to Chater Road, Central. The route taken followed the previously proposed route of the banned public procession. The procession finished at Chater Road with the defendants laying the long banner down on the road.
Contact
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
See also
